Please answer please please answer need the answer

A rectangle has a height of 5m^4 and a width of m^2-2m-1.

vovangra [49]

Step-by-step explanation:

Area of rectangle= lw

$= 5 {m}^{4} \times ( {m}^{2} - 2m - 1) \\ = 5 {m}^{6} - 10 {m}^{5} - 5 {m}^{4} \\$

3 0

3 years ago

We’re is the blue dot on the number line?

BartSMP [9]

Answer:

thank u !! -4.9

7 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers

(1) Factor the GCF out of the trinomial on the left side of the equation. (2 points: 1 for the GCF, 1 for the trinomial) 2x²+6x-

Tanya [424]

Step-by-step explanation:

(1) Factor the GCF out of the trinomial on the left side of the equation. (2 points: 1 for the GCF, 1 for the trinomial) 2x²+6x-20=0

2x²+6x-20

2(x²+3x-10)

the factors are 2 and (x²+3x-10)

(2) Factor the polynomial completely. (4 points: 2 point for each factor)

2(x²+3x-10)

2(x²-2x+5x-10)

2(x(x-2) + 5(x-2)) group like terms

2(x+5)(x-2)

(3) If a product is equal to zero, we know at least one of the factors must be zero. And the constant factor cannot be zero. So set each binomial factor equal to 0 and solve for x, the width of your project. (2 points: 1 point for each factor)

constant = 2 cannot be zero

the other factors are (x+5) and (x-2)

(x+5)=0 => x= -5

or

(x-2)=0 => x=2

(4) What are the dimensions of your project? Remember that the width of your project is represented by x. (2 points: 1 point for each dimension)

thank you so much, sorry if it's a little confusing!!

(it is indeed confusing, because physical dimensions cannot be negative)

The dimensions of the project (assumed a rectangle) are +2 and -5

3 0

3 years ago

The USDA conducted tests for salmonella in produce grown in California. In an independent sample of 252 cultures obtained from w

Marat540 [252]

Answer:

The decision rule is

Fail to reject the null hypothesis

The conclusion is

There no sufficient evidence to show that the proportion of salmonella in the region’s water differs from the proportion of salmonella in the region’s wildlife

Step-by-step explanation:

From the question we are told that

The first sample size is $n_1 = 252$

The number that tested positive is $k_1 = 18$

The second sample size is $n_2 = 476$

The number that tested positive is $k_2 = 20$

The level of significance is $\alpha = 0.01$

Generally the first sample proportion is mathematically represented as

$\^ p _1 = \frac{k_1 }{ n_1 }$

=> $\^ p _1 = \frac{18 }{ 252 }$

=> $\^ p _1 = 0.071$

Generally the second sample proportion is mathematically represented as

$\^ p _2 = \frac{k_2 }{ n_2 }$

=> $\^ p _2 = \frac{20 }{ 476}$

=> $\^ p _2 = 0.042$

The null hypothesis is $H_o : p_1 - p_2 = 0$

The alternative hypothesis is $H_a : p_1 - p_2 \ne 0$

Generally the test statistics is mathematically represented

$z = \frac{ \^ p_1 - \^ p_2 - ( p_ 1 - p_2 )}{ \sqrt{\frac{\^ p_1 (1-\^ p_1)}{ n_1 } + \frac{\^ p_2 (1-\^ p_2)}{ n_2 } } }$

=> $z = \frac{ 0.071 - 0.042 - 0 }{ \sqrt{\frac{0.071 (1-0.071)}{ 252 } + \frac{0.042 (1-\^ 0.042)}{ 476 } } }$

=> $z = 1.56$

From the z table the area under the normal curve to the right corresponding to 1.56 is

$P(Z > 1.56 ) =0.05938$

Generally the p-value is mathematically represented as

$p-value = 2 * P(Z > 1.56 )$

=> $p-value = 2 * 0.05938$

=> $p-value = 0.1188$

From the value obtained we see that $p-value > \alpha$ hence

The decision rule is

Fail to reject the null hypothesis

The conclusion is

There no sufficient evidence to show that the proportion of salmonella in the region’s water differs from the proportion of salmonella in the region’s wildlife

5 0

2 years ago

Orlando invests $1000 at 6% annual interest compounded daily and Bernadette invests $1000 at 7%

Montano1993 [528]

Answer:

6 Years

Step-by-step explanation:

Orlando invests $1000 at 6% annual interest compounded daily.

Orlando's investment = $A=1000(1+\frac{0.06}{365})^{(365\times t)}$

Bernadette invests $1000 at 7% simple interest.

Bernadette's investment = A = 1000(1+0.07×t)

By trail and error method we will use t = 5

Bernadette's investment will be after 5 years

1000(1 + 0.07 × 5)

= 1000(1 + 0.35)

= 1000 × 1.35

= $1350

Orlando's investment after 5 years

$A=1000(1+\frac{0.06}{365})^{(365\times 5)}$

= $1000(1+0.000164)^{1825}$

= $1000(1.000164)^{1825}$

= 1000(1.349826)

= 1349.825527 ≈ $1349.83

After 5 years Orlando's investment will not be more than Bernadette's.

Therefore, when we use t = 6

After 6 years Orlando's investment will be = $1433.29

and Bernadette's investment will be = $1420

So, after 6 whole years Orlando's investment will be worth more than Bernadette's investment.

8 0

2 years ago